On 7/15/2014 1:44 PM, loic.actarus.joly@numericable.fr wrote:
Most probably. But on a practical basis many Boost libraries use Boost PP so if there are problems in Boost PP for a particular compiler it could easily affect an end-user's ability to use a Boost library. That was my larger concern with arguing about clang for VC++'s unfortunate consequence of emulating VC++ preprocessor bugs.
Should they still do? Are there still so many uses for Boost PP ow that most compilers understand variadic templates?
There are approximately 45 Boost libraries out of a total of about 125 libraries that use Boost PP in some form. It is up to the individual library developer whether variadic templates will work instead of using Boost PP. In my own tti library I see no way of passing the name of the element being introspected except through a macro, much less the template parameter list when attempting to introspect a nested class template. There are still things for which a macro library like Boost PP are very useful.